- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17471 WP No. 11454 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11454 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: RAJMAMMAD KHANZADE S/O ALLABAKSHA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT LINE-MAN, O/O ASSISTANT ENGINEER, FRAZER TOWN, O AND M UNIT, BESCOM, BANGALORE- 560 046. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. M.L.SUVARNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE- 560 001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.) SHIVAJINAGAR DIVISION, BENSON TOWN, BESCOM, BANGALORE- 560 048. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRIRANGA S., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ORDER DATED 03.04.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO. KaNiYum(V)/ Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17471 WP No. 11454 of 2025 ShiNaVi/Le/SaLe/HeSa-1/Ka-23/2025-26/80-84 DATED 03.04.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-K IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND GRANT ALL SERVICE AND MONETARY BENEFITS ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.PÁ¤EA(«)/²£À«/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À-1/PÀ-23/2025-26/80-84 dated 03.04.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 by which he was terminated from service. 2. The petitioner contends that he had completed his Industrial Training Institute (ITI) certification as an Electrician from the State Council for Vocational Training (‘SCVT’ for short) under the Department of Employment and Training. The respondent No.2 had invited applications to the post of Assistant Lineman. The petitioner and others had approached this Court in W.P Nos.45517-45943/2014 and connected writ petitions for a direction to the ITI Board to declare the results and release their marks cards in respect of the examination - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17471 WP No. 11454 of 2025 conducted by the SCVT held in the year 2013. This Court directed the concerned officer to file an affidavit regarding the release of marks card and the Controller of State Board Examinations, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Employment and Training, Bengaluru had given an unconditional undertaking assuring that all marks cards pertaining to SCVT 2013 would be released by the Department. Consequently, W.P Nos.45517-45943/2014 and the connected petitions were disposed off in terms of an order dated 08.01.2015. The ITI Board instead of issuing the marks cards, issued provisional marks card to the petitioner based upon which he applied to the post of Assistant Lineman in Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (BESCOM) and was appointed on 13.08.2015 and since then he has been working, though his probationary period is not declared. The respondent No.2 sought for verification of the marks cards from the ITI Board which sought more time to provide information vide its communication dated 14.06.2019. Since no communication was received from the ITI Board, the respondent No.2 herein unilaterally terminated the service of the petitioner by order dated 27.07.2020 which was questioned before this Court in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17471 WP No. 11454 of 2025 W.P No.9112/2020. In the meanwhile, several employees similarly placed as the petitioner had challenged the orders of termination before this Court in several writ petitions, which were allowed and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioners therein. This was questioned by the respondents in W.A.No.261/2020 and connected appeals. In W.A. No.261/2020 and connected cases, the Division Bench in terms of its judgment dated 09.11.2020, inter alia opined that the learned Single Judge was justified in directing that there could be an enquiry in respect of the respondents therein / employees irrespective of the fact whether their probation had been declared or not or even if they were made permanent employees. However, the direction of the learned Single Judge that the respondents therein / employees be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits from the date of dismissal till reinstatement was modified owing to the fact that the learned single Judge had also granted liberty to the appellants therein to hold an enquiry and the enquiry was yet to commence. Accordingly, the Division Bench in the light of the fact that the appellants before it had already reinstated twelve employees and having regard to the principle of parity, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17471 WP No. 11454 of 2025 directed the appellants therein to reinstate all the respondents therein / employees, who had not yet been reinstated into service within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the said judgment, however, holding that the said reinstatement shall be subject to the result of the enquiry and any benefits that they had received consequential to the reinstatement shall also be subject to the result of the enquiry except the salary that they would receive for serving in the appellant’s Company and to that extent, the order of the learned Single Judge impugned therein was modified. 3. The aforesaid W.P. No.9112/2020 filed by the petitioner herein was disposed off by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 27.08.2021 in terms of the judgment (supra) dated 09.11.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.261/2020 and consequently, the notice of termination bearing No.KANI - IM (V) / SHINAVI / LE / SA.LE / KA- 11/2020-21/1603 dated 27.07.2020 impugned therein was quashed. It was further ordered that the petitioner herein would be entitled for reinstatement within four weeks from the date of the said order and consequential benefit payable to the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17471 WP No. 11454 of 2025 petitioner herein would depend on the result of the de novo enquiry. 4. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, the Enquiry Officer held that the charge against the petitioner was not proved. The report of the Enquiry Officer was purportedly not furnished to the petitioner till date. When things stood thus, the petitioner and others approached this Court in W.P No.27330/2024 for a direction to the ITI Board to issue the Trade Certificate / marks card in respect of the examination/s conducted by the SCVT held between 2012 to November 2013. A coordinate Bench of this Court issued notice to the respondents therein and directed the learned Government Advocate to seek instructions in that regard. In the meanwhile, ITI board vide its communication dated 03.12.2024, informed the respondent No.2 that the marks of the employees which was mentioned therein did not match with the records and therefore, their genuineness cannot be certified. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17471 WP No. 11454 of 2025 5. The respondent No.2 issued a final show cause notice to the petitioner on 03.09.2024 disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer under Regulation 11(A)(2) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987. The petitioner submitted his reply contending that the report of the Enquiry Officer was not made available to him and that the respondents were not able to prove the charge that the petitioner had misled the authorities and obtained appointment. However, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service and treating the period from initial dismissal and reinstatement as the period on leave without pay. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer clearly exonerated the petitioner of any misdoing. Therefore, she contends that the next stage of disciplinary proceeding must have been to furnish a report of the Enquiry officer to the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17471 WP No. 11454 of 2025 petitioner and issue a notice calling upon him to set out the reasons for not accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer and after considering the reply of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 was bound to issue a second show cause notice proposing the penalty and then seek the reply from the petitioner. She contends that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra [(1998) 7 SCC 84] had categorically laid down the principles to be followed in case the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. She contends that the respondent No.2 had combined both the notices and issued a final show cause notice to the petitioner and disregarding the findings of the Enquiry Officer had proceeded to pass the impugned order of termination of the services of the petitioner. She, therefore, contends that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is liable to be set at naught. 8. Learned senior counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondent No.2 had notified the petitioner about the reasons for not accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer which was sufficient enough for the Disciplinary Authority to proceed. He contends that the provisional marks - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17471 WP No. 11454 of 2025 card submitted by the petitioner being doubtful, the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue to work in BESCOM. He invited the attention of this Court to the impugned order and submitted that the Department of Employment and Training had confirmed that the marks card furnished by the petitioner did not conform with the records available in its office. Therefore, he contended that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is just and proper and does not warrant interference. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for the respondents. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.261/2020 and connected cases had upheld the order/s of coordinate Bench/es of this Court passed in W.P. No.30003/2019 and several other petitions setting aside the order/s of termination of the petitioner/s therein / employee/s passed by the respondent - BESCOM. However, in so far as reinstatement of the employees and all consequential benefits except salary was concerned, it held that the same shall be subject to an enquiry. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17471 WP No. 11454 of 2025 It also appointed a retired District Judge as an Enquiry Officer who was required to enquire into the allegations regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the marks cards submitted by the 173 employees of the BESCOM. Following the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.261/2020 and connected cases on 09.11.2020, W.P No.9112/2020 filed by the petitioner herein challenging the notice of termination dated 27.07.2020 issued by the respondent No.1 therein was allowed and the notice of termination was set aside. An enquiry was also conducted into the marks card submitted by the petitioner by the very same retired District Judge. Unfortunately, respondent No.2 without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner issued him a final show cause notice disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer on the following grounds: "ªÉÆzÀ®£ÉAiÀÄzÁV ¤ªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄÄRåªÁV F PɼÀPÀAqÀ D¥ÁzÀ£ÁA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆj¸À¯Á¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 1. ¤ªÀÄä C¨sÀåyðvÀéªÀÅ GzÉÆåÃUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ P˱À®å E¯ÁSɬÄAzÀ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. CzÀÝjAzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ CAPÀ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄÄ £ÀPÀ°AiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 2. ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÉÊUÁjPÁ vÀgÀ¨ÉÃw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ GzÉÆåÃUÀ gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25.06.2020 gÀ°è CAPÀ¥ÀnÖ £ÉÊdvÉ ¥Àj²Ã®£Á ¸À«Äw - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17471 WP No. 11454 of 2025 ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤ªÀÄä CAPÀ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄÄ £ÉÊdvɬÄAzÀ PÀÆr®èªÉAzÀÄ zÀÈrüÃPÀj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 3. ²¸ÀÄÛ ¥Áæ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¸ÁPÀëöå ¤ÃrzÀ ¦.qÀ§Æè-1 ²æà ©.J¯ï ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgÀ, dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, vÀgÀ¨ÉÃw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ GzÉÆåÃUÀ DAiÀÄÄPÁÛ®AiÀÄ, P˱À®å ¨sÀªÀ£À, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. "On verification by the committee, it is found that name of the respondent and the list that was sent by the college was not approved list, by our divisional office Hubli. The delinquent employee has secured the job by producing the fake marks card. Hence I pray that the delinquent employee may be disqualified. F ªÉÄð£À J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ½AzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀPÀ° JAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÁVgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt¢AzÀ ¤ªÀÄä C¨sÀåyðvÀ£ÀªÀÅ AiÀÄÄPÀÛªÁV C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉUÉÆAr®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀqÀÄvÀÛzÉ." 11. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice refuting the claim of the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 instead of considering the cause shown in the spirit of Regulation 11 of the Regulations, 1987 has passed the impugned order. In order to test the correctness of the impugned order, it is necessary to refer to Regulation 11(A) of the Regulations, 1987, which is extracted below: "[11][A] Action on the Inquiry Report: The Disciplinary Authority, if it is not itself the Inquiring Authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the Inquiring Authority for - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:17471 WP No. 11454 of 2025 further inquiry and report and the Inquiring Authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Regln-11 as far as may be. [2] The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring Authority on any article of charge record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. [3] If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that one or more of the penalties specified in Regln-9 should be imposed on the Board employee, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Regln-12, make an order imposing such penalty;" Therefore, under Regulation 11(A)(2) of the Regulations, 1987, the Disciplinary Authority is bound to record its reasons for disagreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer and thereafter proceed to record its findings on the charges alleged. 12. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kunj Behari Misra (supra) has held as follows: "18. ….When the disciplinary authority differs with the view of the enquiry officer and proposes to come to a different conclusion, there is no reason as to why an opportunity of hearing should not be granted. It will be most unfair and iniquitous that where the charged officers succeed before the enquiry officer, they are deprived of representing to the disciplinary authority before that authority differs with the enquiry officer's report and, while recording a finding of guilt, imposes - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17471 WP No. 11454 of 2025 punishment on the officer. In our opinion, in any such situation, the charged officer must have an opportunity to represent before the disciplinary authority before final findings on the charges are recorded and punishment imposed. This is required to be done as a part of the first stage of enquiry as explained In Karunakar case ((1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L and S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704) 19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.” Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 terminating the services of the petitioner warrants interference. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order No.PÁ¤EA(«)/²£À«/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À-1/PÀ-23/2025-26/80-84 dated 03.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 is quashed. The - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:17471 WP No. 11454 of 2025 respondent No.2 shall furnish a report of the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh reply to the show cause notice dated 03.09.2024 issued by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 shall consider the reply of the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is needless to mention that such consideration shall be as provided under Regulation 11(A) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ (Classification, Disciplinary Control, and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kunj Behari Misra referred supra. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE sma List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57